“Since the early 1960s, educational technologists have been developing computer-based

instruction (CBI) programs to drill, tutor, and test students and manage instructional

programs” (Kulik & Kulik, 1999).

The I-Learn Math program claims to be effective, engaging,

flexible for teachers, and shows students are increasing in math

knowledge.

This research study looks at effectiveness for standardized testing.

INTRODUCTION

One program, I CAN Learn Pre-Algebra and Algebra, has been shown to be statistically significant in producing

math achievement in several state tests, Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP), Florida

Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), California Standards Test, and Georgia Criterion Referenced Test

(CRCT) (Kirby, 2006)

Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of using the I-Learn math CBI for

6th grade remedial math students.

• Primary Question: Does the I-Learn math CBI program have a positive

effect on students in remediation for 6th grade math?

RESEARCH STUDY PURPOSE

Experimental Group (EG)

Placed in math remediation

due to non-performance

Failing/poor scores on CRCT

Used I-Learn Math CBI

I-Know & GOAS

benchmarks

Control Group (CG)

Similar characteristics of EG

students

CRCT scores slightly below

average to average.

No access to the I-Learn Math

program

GOAS benchmarks only

METHODOLOGY

This research was a quantitative study using a quasi-experimental design where participants will be

in intact groups (Creswell, 2012).

Data Collection

Instruments:

I-Know benchmarks (3) for EG to determine CBI

effectiveness

GOAS school-wide benchmarks (3) for both EG and CG

Both data bases aligned to Common Core Georgia

Performance Standards (CCGPS).

Previous years CRCT results for group comparisons

DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS

Data Analysis

Four Events:

1. CRCT group comparisons (Descriptive Analysis),

2. I-Know benchmarks for CBI effectiveness of EG (ANOVA),

3. GOAS benchmarks for CG and EG learning effectiveness

(ANOVA),

4. CG and EG performance comparison for each benchmark (T-

Tests).

DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS

FINDINGSEVENT 1 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

E X P E R I M E N T A L G R O U P 2 0 1 4 C R C T

R E S U L T S

C O N T R O L G R O U P 2 0 1 4 C R C T

R E S U L T S

FINDINGS

Event 2: I-Know Benchmarks ANOVA Results

FINDINGS

Event 3: GOAS Control Group Benchmarks ANOVA Results

FINDINGS

Event 3: GOAS Experimental Group Benchmarks ANOVA Results

FINDINGS

Event 4: t-Tests Results GOAS Benchmark #3

FINDINGS

Conclusions

The hypothesis is supported and summarized as follows:

No 25 point score differential between groups

Significant growth on I-Know benchmark for EG

Significant growth on GOAS benchmark for EG and CG

T-Tests show no significant difference between CG and EG benchmark

scores indicating effectiveness for the I-Learn math program.

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Limitations

The following limitations are noted for this study:

No I-Know benchmark comparisons between EG and CG

No Georgia Milestone Results available for the study

CG students were not all in same class or with same teacher

Cannot determine CG teachers effectiveness (three different

teachers)

Cannot determine impact of other CBI used in CG

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations

The following recommendations are noted for future studies:

Administer I-Know math benchmarks to CG for group

comparisons

Use Georgia Milestone Test format for GOAS benchmarks

Ensure CG students are in same class or all with same teacher

Monitor use of other CBI to CG students

Compare effectiveness of I-Learn Math program within the

district